Couple at separate addresses 1851 census

[JillCuth]

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on a census entry for me. 1851 I have a married couple at separate addresses (they were at the same address in 1841with their offspring).
in 1851, he is aged 59, at 32 Ouseburn, Byker, described as head of household, occupation labourer with a lodger at the same address.  She is at the home of her daughter and son in law just down the street at number 37 Ouseburn.  Her relationship to head is Mother in law and her rank, profession or occupation is described as "At home with son".  I'm trying to work out if they had separated or if she was just visiting her daughter for the night.  Does anyone have any idea what the "at home with son" might refer to please?
By the way, she died in 1857 so I'm not able to check the 1861 census to see if they were together again by then.  Thanks in advance.

[rosie99]

 

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on a census entry for me. 1851 I have a married couple at separate addresses (they were at the same address in 1841with their offspring).
in 1851, he is aged 59, at 32 Ouseburn, Byker, described as head of household, occupation labourer with a lodger at the same address. 

If you mean he was at no 34 (John Julip) - He states he is unmarried 

[JillCuth]

 

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on a census entry for me. 1851 I have a married couple at separate addresses (they were at the same address in 1841with their offspring).
in 1851, he is aged 59, at 32 Ouseburn, Byker, described as head of household, occupation labourer with a lodger at the same address. 

If you mean he was at no 34 (John Julip) - He states he is unmarried 

So it does! I misread the U for an M.  I'm pretty sure it is him as the age is right, as is the area from the 1841 census.  In 1861 he is living with his son John and daughter in law Ann at Stepney Bank and his marital status is not filled in.  Perhaps the unmarried status in 1851 does mean he was separated from his wife then.

[rosie99]

Did he die in 1885.

FindMyPast have a removal of 'remains' from Jesmond Old Cemetery and it has 4 people mentioned including Elizabeth Tulip who was interred 27th September 1857 and John Tulip who was interred 27 August 1885

[JillCuth]

Did he die in 1885.

FindMyPast have a removal of 'remains' from Jesmond Old Cemetery and it has 4 people mentioned including Elizabeth Tulip who was interred 27th September 1857 and John Tulip who was interred 27 August 1885

No, that's his and Elizabeth's son who was aged 66 when he died in 1885, I found that one in the GRO indexes thanks. The Elizabeth mentioned though is the wife I refer to.  I think he died in 1869 but can't be certain if I have the right guy.  I have a death certificate for a John Tulip of the right age but the informant was the coroner as he died after falling down some stone steps whilst drunk!  No family mentioned so I only have the age to go by.

[PurdeyB]

One set of my G x 2 grandparents appear to have separated. Richard had been married before, with his first wife dying shortly after childbirth. He then married my GGG, Margaret, and had more children. By the 1881 census they were living apart with Margaret living with her children and Richard living with a son from his first marriage, but both were shown as married. The conclusive factor for me was that Richard was buried with his first wife.

[rosie99]

Newspaper reports of the drunken fall do not mention family either.  As his son was still alive at the time you would expect him to be buried with Elizabeth if they were still together when she died.

[JillCuth]

Newspaper reports of the drunken fall do not mention family either.  As his son was still alive at the time you would expect him to be buried with Elizabeth if they were still together when she died.

Yes that's what I'm thinking too.  The marital status of unmarried could be a mistake by the enumerator, an assumption I suppose or it could be that John chose to say he wasn't married if he and Elizabeth were separated.  However, as you say, you would expect him to be buried with her if they were together.  It makes me think it may have been drink problems that caused the break up and at some point even his family decided they didn't want him living with them!  He seems to have died alone and I had seen the newspaper report but no one seems to have known much about him.